quentron.com

[sarkeizen]

pomodoro is doing good work that should produce useful data.  While I think that it is extremely unlikely that the experiment will indicate against the second law I am content to wait and see what the experiment does show.

That's kind of beside the point I was making.  Profits has preached "build it","build it","build it","build it","build it","build it" at people for months.  However regardless of how helpful pomodoro is being.  It's pretty clear that this couldn't have been done by very many people.

Which makes profits's argument bullshit.

[MarkE]

That's kind of beside the point I was making.  Profits has preached "build it","build it","build it","build it","build it","build it" at people for months.  However regardless of how helpful pomodoro is being.  It's pretty clear that this couldn't have been done by very many people.

Which makes profits's argument bullshit.

What I am trying to suggest is that we table such issues until pomodoro's experiments reach a conclusion.  I do not wish to discourage pomodoro by getting into a food fight over profitis' prior claims, and his failure to support them.  If pomodoro's experiments end up failing to support profitis, then anyone will be able to point out that even with a great deal of quality effort, that profitis claims fall down when he insisted that text book references would support them.  If pomodoro's experiments show something interesting, then we get to learn what they show.  And if the incredible happens, then we'll have something far more interesting on our hands than profitis' bravado.

[sarkeizen]

What I am trying to suggest is that we table such issues until pomodoro's experiments reach a conclusion.

I'm not certain that with tinkerers this is usefully achieved.

I do not wish to discourage pomodoro by getting into a food fight over profitis' prior claims, and his failure to support them.

It's not my intent to discourage pomodoro.  However I consider the probability that profitis is correct to be so vanishingly small that I don't see discouraging pomodoro to be risking anything.

If pomodoro's experiments end up failing to support profitis, then anyone will be able to point out that even with a great deal of quality effort, that profitis claims fall down

To what end?  To dissuade people from believing Profitis?  I don't really see a line forming in that queue.  To dissuade profitis?  Please. 
it's is far, far, far more likely that he would simply believe that something wasn't done just so.  Same reason that doomsday cults don't change their minds even when the world doesn't end.   There is simply less dissonance in believing that something wasn't done exactly right than to believe that all his beliefs are false.  Considering how many variables exist in an experiment it's the most likely outcome.

The more important point IMHO is that profits claimed that this would be so incredibly easy to demonstrate.  That thesis is already disproved.

[MarkE]

I'm not certain that with tinkerers this is usefully achieved.It's not my intent to discourage pomodoro.  However I consider the probability that profitis is correct to be so vanishingly small that I don't see discouraging pomodoro to be risking anything.To what end?

Pomodoro's experiments provide direct visual evidence of the actual behaviors.

To dissuade people from believing Profitis?  I don't really see a line forming in that queue.  To dissuade profitis?  Please. 

It's up to profitis to decide how to behave when the experiment is done.  That hasn't been written yet.

it's is far, far, far more likely that he would simply believe that something wasn't done just so.  Same reason that doomsday cults don't change their minds even when the world doesn't end. 

_{Remember when we all got on the big space ark.  But no one was supposed to tell the ...  Oh, never mind!}

There is simply less dissonance in believing that something wasn't done exactly right than to believe that all his beliefs are false.  Considering how many variables exist in an experiment it's the most likely outcome.

The more important point IMHO is that profits claimed that this would be so incredibly easy to demonstrate.  That thesis is already disproved.

I think that goes without saying. 

[sarkeizen]

Pomodoro's experiments provide direct visual evidence of the actual behaviors.

So far it looks a lot like it's just aimless tinkering.  I think that will be pretty apparent when Pomodoro runs out of caring before profitis runs out of tweaks.

It's up to profitis to decide how to behave when the experiment is done.  That hasn't been written yet.

Aren't you directing me to take some kind of action or cease some kind of action based on some outcome that "hasn't been written yet"? How is that different than me taking action based on the probability of success and the probability of other peoples behavior and the probability of the behavior of Profitis?  I just looked at the outcomes, and did an informal decision tree.  The most rational response is...not really to care that much about if Pomodoro stops experimenting because of me.